Why are americans so obsessed with "race"? Race doesn't exist. Does that mean, that all americans are racists...

Why are americans so obsessed with "race"? Race doesn't exist. Does that mean, that all americans are racists, because they seperate humanity in "races"? This word is reactionary and should be abolished.

Other urls found in this thread:

www2.webmatic.it/workO/s/113/pr-465-file_it-Current Genomics 4.pdf

Not all, but still a significant majority. Abolishing the word won't magically prevent them from being racist.

Race definitely exists


The reason why the yanks put so much basis in it is because they have no culture. As they're not Celtic, Italian, German, French, they are simply "white". It's why white nationalism and white "unity" is considered to be fucking stupid as shit in Europe, we actually have things that define us that aren't our skin colour.

Makes sens

Yeah, so what? It literally means nothing for socialism. Also, we will eventually turn ourselves into 10/10 gods with an lQ of 300 and a body hardened by cybernetic implants anyways. The only races left will be AIs and superhumans.

Unless you're a Creationist, it definitely does. Go teach full abbos anything if you want to prove race doesn't exist.

How do you define "full abbo"?

This 100%

Makes them think they have something extra, which they definitely had once, and they kinda still do, but is constantly being eroded by the same global capitalists who tell them they're special when they fuck them.

Because they stupid
Genetic differences do exist between different humans but I get what you're saying.

the ones who didn't interbreed with convicts. there is variability within them too, feel free to pick whichever ones. even the ones who don't know about petrol.


Race exists genetically, but people make so much of a deal of it.

There's no such thing as a master race, it's mainly subjective, because they have all their own traits.

Even ones who were born by them and then migrated to a wealthy family, got the best schooling, the best tutoring and all the essential requirements to live a successful life immediately after? I would if I could but unfortunately capitalism restricts research like you wouldn't believe.

you don't need this, there are poor whites with shit education who are geniuses, there are no well-raised abbo geniuses. you can look at their brain volume if you think it's all about nurturing them.

lacking definition

You're white right? You should know better than this.

Race exist, not biologically tho.

Read a history book dipshit

I bet you think men and women's brains are identical as well

Stop being retarded, any time.

Don't exist, any example you give will 99% have some sort of benefactor you aren't accounting for, or will only be a testament to the astronomical amount of white people compared to abbos, bumping the white amount of geniuses.

I don't know why Americans are like this. Probably a remnant of Jim Crow laws and what not.

look at brain sizes by race
look at Autism Levels

it's sad that you think intelligence relies on education, or that statistics only matter when you want them to

I'll just consider myself correct then. To humor you, however.
Do you have any evidence that this is a causative relationship and not a coincidence? I'm going to assume not.
Do you have any proof that intelligence is even quantitative? How do you know that there aren't "levels" to intelligence?
Do you have literally any proof that Autism Level is representative of "intelligence"? What even is intelligence to you? How have you found the "intelligence" within someone and quantified it successfully? I'm interested.
As opposed to what? You really think over the past 1000 years we've just gotten smarter, and now we understand these big ol algebra problems when before they were for the educated?? The much, much more logical conclusion is that education has become more widespread, supplementing us with knowledge, giving us what I would call intelligence. What is it otherwise? If learning new, more complex problems isn't intelligence, then who are your geniuses you speak of?
Stop taking out your general anger at being BTFO on me. I haven't cited any statistics.

just go back to believing emotional intelligence and body intelligence or whatever it takes to make subsaharan africass pass the mirror test or abbos to be gentle giant rocket scientists

but hey, there are whole fields of quasi-science devoted to trying to prove we're all the same, stick with those and not autism levels

no but you think the difference between abbo geniuses and poor white geniuses is there are more white so more noticeable.

Genes not races. Kthx.

Your entire post is a straw man. This is why I think there are "more white geniuses".


An abo with an Autism Level at or above 100 would be considered an abo genius. There are 40k abos with an Autism Level of 100 or above. Think about what that actually means for a second. You barely understand the basics of the bell curve.


Useless praxis since racial categories have changed over time.
It is complete trivia that is drummed up to divide and conquer the working class to make them fight against each other over ideological and physical differences.
Rather than unity, preaching racialism of any sorts seeks to divide people along arbitrary lines and categories

Only because inEurope we never really had blacks, and in US there is a lot of them. Now it changes, and white identity starts to be a thing.

This evidence doesn't prove the existence of races. The last source is a correlational study based on whatever criteria they chose to use for race, which is a pretty piss poor way of demonstrating that races exist as independent biological phenomena. The first one doesn't really provide any criteria other than "genetic similarity" which doesn't tell us a whole lot. It could very well have a causal relationship between certain ethnic features but we'd need to see some actual evidence grounded in cellural and molecular genetic research to really establish such a relationship. And then the second link again refers to "ethnic background" using HLA markers, which is a respectable difference between that and being "white" or "black". Furthermore it's a statistical analysis based again on correlation. Again, cellular/molecular research would be absolutely necessary to finally establish a causal relationship between ethnicity markers and whatever plays the most critical role in marrow/blood/ect. matches. If you then wanted to use this as your standard for race, you'd then need to create causal link between those genes and any other claim you'd want to make about race e.g. intelligence. Can you see why this would be quite difficult on a scientific level?

You've presented a decent starting point but more research is needed to really valid your claims here. If you have some more more sources of that kind of nature, please share! It would be a breakthrough in the field of genetics.

These are complex traits that are affected by more than one factor. Correlational studies are insufficient to prove that "black people" or whatever are intrinsically less intelligent. Take brain size for example. A large variety of genes could have an impact on how the brain develops, but the genes will have to yield to certain environmental factors as well, such us their nutrition and calorie intake, for example, also have substantial effects of brain size and development.

This is now a Japanese master race thread

Getting boring as fuck porky. There are more diversionary tactics than d&c. At least make it interesting so I don't just tune these threads out.

Let's not.

Didn't have blacks but we had: Mongols, Turkics, Berbers, Arabs, Moors, and Kazakhs. If we include in the peoples who Europeans met via the silk road: Chinese, Indians, Iranians, Afghanis. And finally if you want to include in there the later Indian sea trade: West Africans, Congolese, Bantus, Ethiopians, Javanese, the many different Indochinese, Japanese, all the different types from the Spice islands. So tell me, why do Russians not view race the same way as Americans? They spent most of their history right next to all sorts of different race people yet their closest thing is Slavic unity which is very flimsy cultural union seen more as a power play by Russia for imperialist means. Why do the Greeks not view race the same way despite being ruled by the Turks for many years? Don't try and make up for your lack of culture by saying Europeans didn't have to deal with other races.

Didn't mean to target anyone in particular.

Huh, what a surprise. Turns out aborigines people are at increased risk of malnutrition. Who would have thought?

leftcucks basically follow a religion in their denial of race

so cringey(lol cringe xD)


it isn't arbitrary just because scientific knowledge changes

just use some logic. that a group of animals in one environment and one in another that is wildly different, facing different selection pressures, separated for 100,000 years or pick your favorite divergence, would only differ in color is ridiculous.

your people have already tried putting everyone in the same environment, and when they measured differently, it must be family culture, or another type of intelligence we don't know of, or bias. you'll say anything to pretend race isn't real.

fine, breeds don't real and I have some shetlands to pull your plows and some chihuahuas to hunt with. just give them nutrition and an education and they'll be successful

Let's assume races are real, what do you want to do with that info?

Shut up non-white.

then it should be easy to find at least a few who weren't malnourished and have Autism Levels averaging the same as whites

So, correlational evidence is insufficient to establish the existence of an independent biological phenomena such as "race".

I never claimed that. Good straw man, though.

Who are "my" people? lol. Also define "same" environment, would you. Quality of life and environment still varies substantially, even in America alone.

This is called intellectual honesty.

Another strawman, great.

Are you supposing that they don't exist?

Please preach to /sci/ what you are here, they'd have a field day with you.

meant for

The concept of white and black is not a scientific knowledge locked away by the elite.
Racial categories aren't even scientific terms, they're ideological ones that came about during the slave trade and have changed since. Scientific knowledge changes with rigorous testing and experimenting. The occasional observation is welcomed but the thing about race is that it is just a mere observation, nothing more. It doesn't matter where we draw the line of what is "white" or not, the Italians and Irish weren't considered white but now they are. Scientific knowledge doesn't change with societal norms or values, they change with the discovery of new facts and methods.

you agree there are species and genus etc. right?

intellectual honesty my ass.

yes. find me a group of unmixed abbos who receive enough of the more than a billion dollars worth of aid to not be malnourished, who have Autism Levels the same as whites

Hi! I see you missed my post asking you a question. It's okay it happens to the rest of us from time to time so I'll ask it again. Let's assume races are real, what do you want to do with that info?

Yeah. Do you intend to claim that our genetic divergence is wide enough to constitute a separate genus or species?

Let's look at the whole sentence, shall we
Tell me, where did I say that "white" and "black" people only differ in skin color?

Oh, I see. Friend, there is a measurable different between saying, "Our statistical analysis has constraints as we were unable to account for possible confounding variables" and what you're suppose. The former is what scientists are actually doing, the latter what your Big Academia™ boogyman is doing.

I'd like a citation for the claim about over a billion dollars in aid. And, no promises about the group. I'm afraid I don't have the funds to conduct such a research project. I guess that gives you an excuse to be intellectually lazy huh

Yes, in other animals. Not in humans.

I thought it was obvious that race being biologically real means that ideologies founded on race being a social construct need reformed, at the very least.

Slavery was a racial institution. Jim Crow was a racial institution. Jim Crow ended within your parents' lives. When laws reference race of people, you have to act as if race is real in a legal sense.
The reason race is a big deal in America is because most Americans constantly think with race because race is everywhere in their day-to-day. Cops harass you because your black, someone calls you a nigger, on the news they have long sections on the knock out game popular with 'urban youths.' And this serves a material role in structuring wealth and the politics of the American middle class. Suburbs were originally created because of the Great Migration - tons of Black southerners going to Northern and Western cities for jobs during the first World War - scaring white people into moving away and driving far to work. Why were black people scary to white people? Well, the question makes us use race to describe people. We can't just answer the question with "some people were afraid of the other people," because it denies so much context.
To just say it's people being dumb is idealist.

What ideologies are you talking about where race needs to be a social construct?

We should acknowledge race in the sense of the ideology people enforce on each other about putting them in categories and treating them differently. But we should be ready to point out the arbitrary nature of these groupings and the lack of scientific basis for them.

how does this magic work?

American Socialism started as organized race-based hatred and, guess what, socialism still exists in the US.

Also no it isn't obvious. I don't know why anyone would want races to be a social construct. There's enough variability between individuals to say not everyone is equal as it is. Why would races being real or not have anything to offer?

Perhaps it was the violence and crime?

What do you make of this?
I'm not especially good at taxonomy, or even biology in general, so I'm curious for the take of anons with more experience. It seems like this researcher concludes that it's very possible for humans to be separated into several sub-species, or even species altogether depending on your approach to taxonomy or some such reason.

Consider the following:

The racial question (of the degree of actual division in human genetic pool, of psychological differences et cetera) should be regarded in a purely material, physical, apolitical nature. Genes and their expressions in themselves are devoid of economic, class or political content. Therefore, the work of describing the nature of human genetic variation should be the job of exact science before race-related information enters the ideological zone.
To bring this to its radical conclusion, if science ever agrees that racial differences exist, Leftism is obliged to accept it.

Compare the brain mass of elephant or whale to a crow, and you see large difference.
But their intelligence doesn't differ that much. Both crows and elephants are pretty smart.
Brain size ≠ INT number, as if intelligence is such an easy thing to measure as in fantasy games.

People are divided quickest on articles of themselves they believe (or have been alluded to believe) they cannot change.

A white person can't change the color of their skin nor genetic heritage.
A black person can't change the color of their skin nor genetic heritage.
No one can, no one inbetween can, and gene editing sure as hell can't change that right now.

So what do we have? A bunch of folk that have been badgered with targeted news and media, one side says one story while the other preaches the other side. One news report states "Someone died" while the other says "Black shot Mexican". They saw how ratings flared more for the latter and began utilizing that. People begin to fear for their lives now simply by being in the company of someone else just because they've been conditioned to believe that. Because segregated masses truly are easier to corral into respective political, Gerrymandered, zones to act as good little voters towards the parties that "care about them" """so much""".

After years of this nonsense, people quite literally are up in arms against one another. There's no way to escape it as the most gullible of the masses are already willing to turn this 'cold' Nazi masturbation fantasy hot. It's honest-to-god garbage and people keep eating from the hands of these controllers, continuing on like it's truth.

It's got me wondering if folk are just this oblivious to the truth of things on purpose or via desperation.

You're effectively reversing cause and effect here.

When Zimbabwe kicked out all it's white farmers, and then begged for them to come back, can it truly be said that their stupidity was a result of malnourishment? It's more practical to say that it's a deficit of intelligence that leads to poor nutrition.

What does your one historical example that is specific to one single country have to do with anything?

Now I just feel like a dope for thinking you'd have anything of worth to say.

You went full retard after the second sentence.

Intelligence is not the same as wisdom.
Besides, the only reason Mugabe even came to power is because the Anglos went full retard during the Cold War.
I Q does not affect your digestive system, you fucking retard.

That's not how it works. Research has long since proven that on an individual level, strong correlations can be found between intellectual ability and nutrition, regardless of race or nationality. This correlation is direct and linear, not merely the product of medical outliers.
Intelligence only has a causal effect on health when literal retards can't care for themselves.
Using Zimbabwean politics as evidence in an argument about behavioral psychology is about as contrived as it gets. I'm honestly impressed by how dumb this is.

Based OP.
Every time someone says "person of colour" I reach for my gun

Two black parents can give birth to a white child. There's a condition called vitiligo which causes a black person to have patches of white skin and white hair. Skin color is due to gene expression, not DNA.

They still arent changing their genetic heritage or skin colour dipshit

nice job Holla Forums

How do you define race. The problem is that you'd be presupposing race exists… to prove that race exists. Do you see why that doesn't work?

there are traits that are passed down from parent to child, this fact means that if the species continues for a long time groups that are like each other more then they are alike to the other groups will arise, this is sometimes refereed to as race
some people think the differences do not matter to much and some people think they do, you can gather statistical data to try and support your claim in this way
personally, statistical data is useless to me because while it might be able to tell you about a race in general, it can never tell you about an individual person, and I care much more about people then races

Now I just feel like a dope for thinking you'd be able to actually explain your position in a meaningful manner.

Education trumps genetics.

In my country (Germany) does no one use the word "race" to describe people with different skin colors.

wildly different sizes, environments, not even all mammals. While humans according to race-deniers aren't even different subspecies. Equalize for bodymass and because of the asians you'll find even more variation between groups.

once again, find a highly educated abbo that proves your point. I won't hold my breath

yeah, your people were effectively neutered post ww2. your whole country was punished because of your government.

FYI other volunteers, there are plenty of good discussion and btfos. Do not delet.

The last one, Homo neanderthalensis, is extinct.

I know man, right? If it weren't for systemic racist oppression, these differences in skull morphology would never exist!

Leftism isn't about rejecting the international capitalist elite and protecting your people from poverty and exploitation- it's about denying that your people exist!

Yeah, race means nothing for socialism. After all, socialism has only ever functioned in vibrant, multicultural societies like the United States and Uganda. It could never work in high-trust, ethnically homogenous societies like Iceland!

except for those H. n. genes carried by europeans and asians but not by africans. makes you think

If race doesn't exist, does white privilege still exist?

White privilege is anti-dialectical liberal bullshit

I don't think anyone here is denying the existence of various physiological trends among groups of people with the most similar DNA. The problem comes from trying to formalize these structures into a scientific definition for race. Take your image for example, how do you want to formalize this definition for race. Should it be the diameter of the skull? The shape of the brow? Okay, then what genes are responsible for these changes– are those the genes that define one's race? How many races are there? How do these relate to other concerns about race, such as intelligence. Do these newly identified racial genes have a link to brain development, and what is it?

These are the questions science is trying to answer. I understand where you're coming from, since humans are very good at abstraction– we like to fit things in categories, but in cases like these, what are the boundaries to these categories?

I assume what you're really trying to say is

This was actually something I was unaware of, and it interested me. And you're right until recently this was the scientific consensus, however new evidence as early as 2016 seems to indicate that Africans actually do have neanderthal DNA, just less than what we find in Europe and Asia, for instance.

Doesnt mean anything, you know those crafty Jews and what not. I'm going to need proof of an actual, solid education not just money thrown at them.
Did you not read the entire rest of my post where I was talking about bell curve problems???

I like you, come over to my place and fuck my sister.

Whoopse, accidentally linked to page 2 of the article. Here's page 1

And I should add, that in the hypothetical scenario I described, I'd probably still be a socialist, too. Point being, the validity of socialism is independent from whether or not all humans are blank slates at birth.

Not that user, but I don't really make much of it. The idea that humans are evolutionarily divergent in any strict sense is absurd. Different populations of humans haven't been strictly separated enough to produce much divergence, and most conceptualizations of race are too vague to be of any use to science. Intuitively it makes sense that a category based around morphology and history (as race is) would be somewhat useful in an extremely vague sense, but I disagree with the paper's conclusion that the scientific community rejects the biological reality of race. People are (understandably) uncomfortable with using a controversial and largely stigmatized category like race, so they opt to use more precise categories. That's a good thing imo.


Wow, shocking.

Where do you guys get the impression that race doesn't exist? Have you ever actually looked at surveys of biologists?

I didn't click on the particular study he linked, but I've looked at a lot, and generally speaking the researchers don't choose the k-value (which would be the most important criterion), the algorithm does, AFAIK.

Further, most of the good studies don't use particular ethnic markers, but completely random SNPs.

It's pretty tough to deny race when these programs are sorting people to their self-identified race near-100% of the time.

There is no counter argument to made, you employ the same rhetoric they do in their infinite regress looking for "transitional forms" while pointlessly deconstructing.

You are zealots there is no point. I take solace in the fact that nobody actually believes this shit in meat space race denialists only exist on the internet.

Do you have some? I've been looking but the earliest one I've found so far is 32 years old.

You fucking moron, people who are skeptical of race as a scientific concept are fucking rigorous compared to race "realists" who cherry pick to support their own preconceived notions of how things are. I'd choose someone who takes a skeptical stance on an issue over someone who tries to contort the evidence to fit with their conception of reality. Additionally science already went through a profoundly retarded racialist period, so it makes sense that there would be widespread reticence to start uncritically using those concepts again. Start making arguments or shut the fuck up, brainlet.

yeah this isn't true. Americans have plenty of culture, it's just that American culture is spread so wide through media that it seems like the default that other cultures build on. Fucking smug Europeans, I swear. It's like they think we sit around drinking room temperature water, and eating white bread, and watching static TV screens in our empty beige rooms because we just have no culture at all.
Guess you shouldn't read any comic books, or watch any American movies, or listen to any American music (including Jazz, which originated in the US), don't play any American video games, don't go to any supermarkets, go ahead and avoid American Pizza and hamburgers (originated in New York, not Hamburg). I mean, those things would all be so devoid of culture that you Europeans/Canadians would surely find them boring.>>2294613

Because most countries aren't as racially diverse as the US, and because on this continent, the only other white culture are the Canadians, who are super similar to us in every appreciable way, and the Québecois who most Americans are too geographically challenged to know even exist. A lot of Americans don't travel abroad, so to them, all white people have the same culture. It seems normal to them. Black and hispanic people appear to have different cultural customs, but all the white people they've ever known speak the same language and act the same in every way that matters.

Yes, the word for that is 'race'.

you still need to find me some abbo geniuses to prove your point

thanks for the link. by african I meant generically subsaharan, not khoisan, who are wildly different.

Laughable, truly laughable.


Except the meaning of race isn't even widely agreed upon within various scientific communities, but even if it were you still couldn't conflate the social and scientific meanings of the word like so many right-wing types (including you) do. If race is a scientific concept then it makes no sense to speak of a race as being "your people".

No, dude, you're really just burying your head in the sand. The information is available for you to seize upon it.


You could read The Bell Curve, or dozens of people who have replicated the main findings that it cited after its publication.

Or you could just walk around black-majority areas until you get a sense of how they live. I can't take you seriously as a socialist until you notice that wealth redistribution in a multi-racial society just involves taking from one group and giving to the other group, which has no shame about taking away from outsiders. You can see this malicious dependency in every non-white minority in every country.

You cannot have utopia until this issue is solved. You cannot have Icelandic socialism unless your country has the demographic make-up of Iceland.

While you are still struggling to be taken seriously, you are losing people to the growing Not Socialist movement, which has been willing to correctly identify the need for a cohesive nation and people in order to have socialism, and the impossibility of applying such a system to a cosmopolitan, international blob of people who have no loyalty to each other.

Leonard Lieberman (very prominent anti-racist BTW) did one in 1992.

The latest ones unfortunately are all from anthropologists. But they trend toward race acceptance. Especially non-western European/North American, non-boomer-aged anthros. Which should tell you something about the ideological origin of race-denial.

Oh, you're one of those "you must agree with me on literally every major political issue or you're part of the spooky alt-right" people. Cool.
Yeah, that's why I don't. My people are my family, my friends, my comrades and my culture. My race means nothing to me. I have more in common with a poor black American than I do with a rich white American, or a white Spaniard.

Hahahahahahahahahaha, it's always dipshits citing the same few discredited pieces of grey literature who are true believers in the "biological reality™" of race, isn't it? Lmao.

yeah, just like the asians- oh wait
You have no understanding of American history as it pertains to race, and it's clear you're suffering from extreme confirmation bias.

AFAIK The Bell Curve is a pretty uncontroversial, 30 year old pop-science book. It's not a central pillar of race realist arguments.

No, I'm not? You've said things that gave me the impression you were right wing. You're , right? If so, I wasn't wrong, was I? :^)
Fair enough, you might not be the person I thought you were. Regardless you still conceded the main point I made in my post (i.e. that race doesn't have an agreed upon definition, and that even if there were it wouldn't be equivalent to the sociological concept of race)

no, but whenever you question the legitimacy of their claims they refer you to it.

Yeah well, everyone assumes there's a magic science-man in the sky somewhere that confirms all of their biases without actually doing the research.

Hardly an aut-right specific phenomenon.

Sociological race is bunk. The only reason people think it's a thing is because minority groups tend to live together and preserve their culture. As for American blacks (yes they have their own culture, yes it's distinct from regular American culture, yes there are also black people who are part of normal American culture) the race part is more or less circumstantial, although it should also be noted that these communities are surprisingly racist themselves. They were brought together by a common history (slavery) kept together by continued, real and systemic racism lasting another several decades, and by the time the systemic part was taken out of that term they were already distinct.

Hardly. "read Capital".

Yet the human genome project doesn't find race to be a biological phenomenon

WEW. It's it's insanely controversial, and it would be better classified as "pop-anthropology" than "pop-science", although even "pop-anthropology" stretches the limits of what "anthropology" means. It's characterization of human intelligence and it's relationship to Autism Level are both highly dubious, and the link he draws between genetics and intelligence is almost entirely based on pure conjecture. Additionally his statistical methods is full of flaws, and adjusting scores to account for educational status largely undercuts the conclusion that Autism Level is a better predictor of socioeconomic status than other metrics.

Yet those clusters and trends are more troublesome than you might think.




Socialism is not wealth redistribution

www2.webmatic.it/workO/s/113/pr-465-file_it-Current Genomics 4.pdf

The human genome project dealt with base pairs, not alleles. Those findings aren't relevant to race.

There are surveys of psychologists and their opinions on how well eye-cue operationalizes intelligence. Vast majorities (over 2/3's) seem to think it does. So you're in the minority opinion.

What? That it's highly heritable? In 2017 that's trufacts. Wikipedia is your friend.

Okay, but the article in question discusses alleles

Tells us what, that race realism was an idea that came from boomer-era americans? How does that help you?

Also, why are anthropologists analyses irrelevant?

Yeah, it does. But anything below the subspecies level is by definition overlapping populations where discrete genes wouldn't be present.

Alright, then I'm a bit confused. From what do you derive your definition of race?

Race is a taxonomic category one tier below subspecies and tier above strain.

Race denialism was at its peak during boomer and gen-x in western Europe and America for whatever reason.

If this idea didn't catch on behind the iron curtain, or in Africa or Asia, this tells us that race-denialism is a shibboleth of western LIBERALISM. Not a dispassionate fact.

They're not irrelevant, just a softer science. Closer to historians.

> no allele will be found in all members of one population and in no members of any other.
I'm sure you can see how that is a bullshit nonstatement made to sound like something important

critique the science, then.

It's telling us that groupings are not genetically discrete. What is the point of your racial groups if we can see that they aren't genetically discrete?

u wot, what he stated is requisite if you want to claim that race and mental ability are causally related
probability of heritability is meaningless, at least concerning politics

these are biological groupings. there is always going to be some outlier, some mutant, anything, who has a different allele, that some other animal of a similar grouping, be it species or genus or higher, has somewhere. they are saying this one absolute and this other absolute don't exist at the sametime therefore…
physics may work that way but the natural world does not. it's a cop out.

Furthermore, many studies show that there is more genetic variation occurs within populations than without.




to give a few

Some anthropologists, sure, but let's not neglect the field of physical anthropology

before I reply (and I'm going to be gone for a few days and may not soon), do you at least accept my point at

That's fine. I do accept your point with the stipulation that outliers can usually be ignored, and that if you're going to make discrete biological groupings you at least need to define the criteria for how much "messiness" is allowed before it's no longer considered part of your category.

Even if we accept a few outliers, a racial category should have at least some unique traits, right? well, what the HGP is saying points out that this is impossible on some level. Of course, if you have good evidence to the contrary then, I'll be more inclined to accept what you're saying, and impressed that you were able to expose the HGP

can usually be ignored when considered the whole on average*

Heritability doesn't mean what you think it means, friendo

first off, one of the people working on the same things back when Lewontin was, later wrote 'Lewontin's Fallacy.' short version being that looking at alleles in isolation is not like looking at clusters of them.
Alleles can be expressed differently in different races ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17206142
and basically, genes are moved around for different races ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17901297 ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17122850

don't have time for more right now. in case I'm not around for a while, my whole point is that there genetic differences which lead to different behavioural traits and capabilities between peoples. Dogs of different breeds and wolves have much less variation genetically then people (it has to do with the way they were selected by humans I believe), yet not only look wildly differently but act differently. Whole breeds that are mostly smart, or stupid, or wild, or easy to work with, sighthound, scenthounds, herders, etc.

ps. that guy from HGP who claimed the 99.9% later changed it. Not tryin to channel anyone, but I've seen figures for neanderthal/hss that were higher than what he gave.

I never understood what this means.

Race is a nubilous term that is used in biology with no serious overarching definition (except race being smaller than subspecies and larger than strain), unlike other classifications that were somewhat formalized and agreed upon. But it doesn't mean the concept cannot take a valid meaning in some context, you just define it.
Everyone alive today is of the subspecies Homo Sapiens Sapiens. There are significant differences among humans that allows one to classify them into races.

Any comparisson between genetic distances in other species is moot, because the meaning of race is always contextual in biology.
Any denial that these differences in humans are highly correlated and groupable, is blind denial.
Race is just a term used to signify differences within a subspecies. You can all any difference with any name, call it "strain" if you want to covey that the differences are minor, but as long as you can distinguish two things, you can name them appart.

Yes, definitions are tautological, you always make the definition so different things get different names.

oh right, if only black kids in NYC and Chicago knew that race didn't exist. Then the cops would leave them alone

I'm a biology major and have never seen the term race used in any recent genetic study (from an actual research lab, not a "study" from some dudes basement). It's disingenuous to try to give weight to the term by acting as if current scientific literature uses or endorses it.

Sure you could say differences in humans let you group them up into different groups, but it's entirely subjective. It also really depends on what you mean as significant. A single SNP can cause vast changes in the body, where as deleting a whole gene might not manifest itself in any detectable way at all. The first one is a simpler mutation, but causes greater affect. Which one is more "significant"?

Again, race is not a term used in actual biological sciences.

But no one is denying humans can have genetic differences, but rather they are not static and there is no fine line between them. You can look at a swede and a ugandan and say "they're different races" but if you line everyone between uganda and sweden up, everyone will point to a different person as to where the lines are drawn. It's like trying to argue when red ends and orange begins, it's a practice in needless futility.

"Genetic cluster analysis of the microsatellite markers produced four major clusters, which showed near-perfect correspondence with the four self-reported race/ethnicity categories. Of 3,636 subjects of varying race/ethnicity, only 5 (0.14%) showed genetic cluster membership different from their self-identified race/ethnicity. "

Race is a genetic reality. There are edge cases and mixed races, but that doesn't mean it isn't real.


why is any culture obsessed with anything? because its pushed upon them. duh.

The existence of intermediate forms does not disprove the differences on either end of the spectrum it reaffirms them.

i dont know if it reaffirms them, maybe you could explain that one to me, but i dont see why it would hurt that notion either.

This thread would be hilarious, if it weren't so sad.


in day to day life people arent as concerned with race as social media would have you believe. im not saying it doesnt exist. but it is largely just another trick to stir conflict.